assets from the 1990s privatization; they are not at all favored by banks and investment funds, and they literally have to extract the money necessary for development - but they do not seem to be upset at all about this. Because their business as a result turns out to be much more independent and invulnerable, the competitive field in which they operate - much more open and honest, and their success - much more directly determined by their talent, knowledge and entrepreneurial acumen. They compete with each other with intelligence and cunning, not with lobbying power and capital.

These sixty entrepreneurs are typical representatives of medium and small businesses. The same business that keeps the economies of developed countries, which have long realized the colossal social value of a huge class of people engaged in their own business. That is why the newspaper "Business" sees its mission precisely in promoting the development of such a class in Russia. Meeting and talking with these people almost every day, we feel fantastic energy, drive and ambition, overflowing with them, despite any difficulties. And we understand that such people will inevitably succeed. We kind of envy them.

Yuri Katsman

Introduction
THREE FEATURES OF THIS BOOK
There is not a single line in this book about Kremlin intrigues and resonant events. Power aces are not mentioned at all. And there is no gossip from the life of celebrities either. The heroes of this book, with rare exceptions, can hardly be called public figures at all. 47 men and 13 women are simply our contemporaries, with whom you can easily come face to face in a supermarket. And pass by without paying much attention.

Here are collected 60 interviews (first published in the daily newspaper "Business") - obviously not with the oligarchs and not with the regulars of secular parties. Here is the first salient feature of this book. On what basis, then, did they all receive the attention of the press and become the heroes of this collection?

As they would say in the days of agitprop, this book carries a "powerful ideological charge." The ideological charge of the collection, and this is its second characteristic feature, is that our "heroes from the street", however, are quite successful entrepreneurs of the "small and medium level". Success, as we understand it, consists in the fact that they: a) tirelessly go about their business day by day; b) their business is still alive and even tends to develop. Some may object that the scale of this business is predominantly Moscow. As a response, let me remind you of the proverb "If you can do it in Moscow, you can do it in New York." Those who do not like such "modest" criteria for success can devote their time to studying the deeds of more epic figures, and we will not be offended by anyone.

Finally, the third feature I would call the fundamental incompleteness, "unlacquered" publications. These are more “snapshots” than battle canvases. Sketches, sketches, sketches. 13 journalists took part in the creation of the interviews, which are presented in full in the second part of the book. It is clear that everyone has his own “pen”, his own way of talking to the interlocutor. And these interlocutors themselves often spoke frankly with journalists literally on the run, not wanting to break away from their work for a minute. That is why this book lacks a single style, repetitive questions, orderliness of presentation and, perhaps, deep conclusions.

But there is a drive, a daring voice of the street, some kind of positive internal energy. My task as the author-compiler was to give the reader the necessary explanations of an economic nature, to suggest a train of thought, but in no case to direct it anywhere. Everyone should try and digest this nutritious broth of other people's achievements. For my undemanding taste, it turned out to be a burning brew.

Personally, I perceive this book as a collective work. Therefore, in those cases where I am completely sure that all my colleagues would “sign up” for a certain statement or conclusion, I will use the pronoun “we”. In more risky situations, I take the brunt and state some of the considerations in the first person. Hope you don't get confused.

WHERE ARE THE ANTIHEROES REGISTERED HERE?
Psychologists call people who want to imitate “role models”. Can a more or less accomplished entrepreneur in Russia become a model for copying and even, I'm not afraid of the very thought, a national hero? Yuri Gagarin - maybe. It's proven. But he was an astronaut, and he performed his exploits in the USSR at a time when the very idea of ​​free enterprise was under an absolute ban. And the “daring merchant Kalashnikov”, who replaced the astronauts, weavers, steelworkers and ballerinas, can become a “role model”? Not yet proven. Moreover, pessimism about this is growing. They even remember the heroes of Russian fairy tales and classical literature. Ilya Muromets sat on the stove for 33 years. Ivan the Fool strove to get everything for nothing. And Manilov painted such a spreading cranberry exclusively with mental efforts that deservedly became a household name. Government inertia and bureaucratic bureaucracy, in the process of creating a warm entrepreneurial climate, for some reason play out the same scenario, invariably acting as the Baba Yaga of the bone leg. The same malicious old woman who kept trying to send uninvited guests straight into the stove. Throughout the world, hatred and envy of the rich is equally strong. And a poorer neighbor to a richer one, and do we really have a bosom friend and assistant? In our country, the incomes of the rich and the poor differ by 14 times. In Moscow - 53 times. I dare to suggest that it is in Russia, where the stratification of society is so obvious, that the hatred and envy of the vegetating sections of the population is especially fierce. Society tends to indiscriminately condemn "merchants" both explicitly and at the genetic level. After all, the history of domestic capitalism was tragically interrupted many decades ago and had no logical development for a long time.

In the public mind, the "masters of life" remain the authorities, the oligarchs and organized crime. That is why in the so-called elite we have parodists and comedians, and civilized entrepreneurs - the cat cried. Parodists and comedians at least distract viewers from rising prices. And the “traders”, on the contrary, seem to inflate these very prices. So it turns out that the image of the profession of "businessman" in the eyes of society is most often negative. Businessmen do not get into the list of the best people of the country in any way, therefore, all others do not want to be guided by their norms of behavior and values.

Not receiving moral support from the “broad strata”, businessmen suffer material damage from the raids of the impudent bureaucracy, which seeks to “clean the cow”. Businessmen tend to "negotiate" with the attackers in more or less civilized ways (taking into account the state of the judicial and arbitration systems). The mechanisms of the social contract are not always successful, the negative resonance among the public is intensifying, in the camp of involuntary fans and sympathizers there are moods that are capaciously described by the phrase "a plague on both your houses." The masters of life are specific individuals who are able to "solve problems". The circle is closed.

FROM RABBITS WE NEED VALUABLE FUR
Maybe the economic practice in other countries will tell us something wise and positive? Economic practice, and even more so science, performed by wise rulers and Nobel men testify to the extraordinary, exceptional benefits of small and medium-sized businesses. I emphasize: about the extraordinary and exceptional benefits.

In developed countries, it is this business that provides up to two-thirds of the national product. In our country - on the strength of 10-15%. In our country, only one in four works in firms with less than 250 people. According to World Bank experts, the 23 largest Russian business groups - with sales of more than $400 million a year or with more than 19,000 employees - have concentrated in their hands about 35% of industrial sales and about 16.4% of those employed in industry.

Our economy is monopolized and quasi-monopolized in many industries. In other countries, the products of countless small and medium-sized enterprises form full-fledged competitive consumer markets, provide certain guarantees of employment for the population, and the country's stability in the face of the challenges of globalization.

Moreover, many high-tech industries can develop solely through a symbiosis of small innovative firms, where "garage geniuses" acquire venture funding and creative freedom in exchange for the use of the results of their work by large corporations. And the service sector, which in the United States has long exceeded 80% of GDP, very often consists of medium-sized enterprises. There are small, but not at all poor countries in which the list of international corporations is limited, God forbid, to five to ten names. Everything else is just small business.

So, the arguments in favor of small business are more than weighty: job security, competition, a significant share in GDP, a guarantee of the very existence of entire industries and even countries. Why, in practice, is everything through a stump deck?

GET UP AND GO
A paradoxical situation is emerging. From a social point of view, there is no worse bogey and irritant than the unexpected or, moreover, well-deserved financial success of the nearest neighbor. From a macroeconomic point of view, there is nothing more healthy for the national economy than the rapid development of private enterprise.

Society has two ways to resolve this